Ontario Family Law Blog : Barrie Lawyer & Attorney Brian Galbraith : Simcoe County, Canada Divorce, Separation, and Collaborative Law

Sudden Divorce Syndrome: If you are shocked that your spouse wants a divorce after many years of marriage, you may be a victim of SDS. Chip Hues and Donna Ferber debate the topic in Chip's excellent blog called Ohio Family Law Blog Chip has permitted me to reproduce his blog below for your reading pleasure. It's worth a read. Thanks Chip! 

I am pleased that Donna Ferber, a psychotherapist and a frequent contributor to the Ohio Family Law Blog has agreed to co-author this article with me! Our goal is to present both the legal and emotional perspectives of a trend that we are seeing in our professional practices: long term marriages ending by divorce when the wife has come to the conclusion that she has just “had enough” and that the husband is seemingly caught “blindsided” by the situation. The intent of the article is not a male versus female point and counterpoint, but rather a collaborative discourse that can provide insight into the complexity of the issues.

My legal analysis is in regular black font and Donna’s perspective as a psychotherapist is in blue italics…

Having been a divorce lawyer for over 30 years, I see recurring themes in many of my cases.  Statistics show that there will be about a million divorces in the United States this year.  About 75% are filed by women.  More of my male clients are telling me that they are completely “blind-sided” by the divorce situation.  These are individuals in long-term marriages who have honored their wedding vows, are not abusers, and had not been separated.  This scenario is becoming so common that some lawyers and psychologists have given it a name: “Sudden Divorce Syndrome.”

 

While it is true that women may file more often than men, it does not necessarily follow that they WANT a divorce. They simply have surrendered the hope that the marital relationship can change. It is only after years of feeling ignored, devalued, invisible and unheard, do women finally pull the plug and file for divorce. The term, “Sudden Divorce Syndrome,” implies that women throw out their marriage as impulsively as they change shoes. A man may be shocked by the news that his wife wants “out” but that doesn’t mean she hasn’t given plenty of warning. It usually means he wasn’t listening. “Sudden Divorce Syndrome” assumes impulsive behavior on the part of the woman. Nothing is further from the truth.  Perhaps a better term would be “Shocked Divorce Syndrome.” That certainly is an accurate description of these men who find themselves blindsided.

 

I have represented both the man and woman in these situations.  Here are my impressions of what I am seeing.  Men and women think and react very differently.  Often, the woman will monitor the relationship for a period, and will by nature attempt to fix it.  The man may perceive this as nagging or complaining.  The man then may become more distant and withdrawn.  As time passes, without counseling, neither party is happy and their needs become unmet.  The wife may suppress her feelings for a period in hopes that the situation will change.  Ultimately, the wife concludes that her only choice for happiness is to separate and to file for divorce.  The man is caught unaware of the situation, and even if he offers to change, he has missed that opportunity.  The woman says that she has become tired of “talking to the wall.”  When I inquire of her what is wrong she will answer, “Everything.”

 

As a psychotherapist in private practice for 25 years I see this happen with regularity. The struggle and ambivalence women experience about leaving their marriage cannot be overstated. And often they struggle for a really long time. When I ask women “how long have you been unhappy?” I find that most respond with a time line that represents roughly half the life of the marriage. In other words, a woman who is married for 20 years will often say she has been unhappy for 10 years. Again, there is nothing sudden about these decisions. Women don’t leave on a whim. On the contrary, many of them stay too long.

 

Prior to seeking a divorce, they frequently show up in my office on the referral of their family physician. They have headaches, digestive problems, insomnia, depression or anxiety. These can be symptoms of living in an untenable relationship for years. These physical ailments are manifestations of what happens when we live our lives in a way that goes against our value system. It puts us “ill at ease” or in “dis-ease” and when we make change to remedy the situation, these ailments often abate. I have heard countless women exclaim, “I had no idea how much stress I was living with, until I ended my marriage.”

According to an article, Sudden Divorce Syndrome, written by John Sedgwick in BestLife Magazine, one in four men who were divorced in the previous year said they “never saw it coming. These statistics are supported by an AARP poll.  Only 14 percent of divorced women said they experienced the same unexpected shock. Dr Lori Buckley says, “The warning signs are usually there, but the male mind is simply not very adept at recognizing them.  When women make up their mind that the relationship is over, they stop talking about the relationship.  Men interpret a woman’s lack of complaining as satisfaction.  But more often, it’s because she’s simply given up.”  And just because a man has been married for a long time and has been a good financial provider, there is no reason to assume all is well.  That is exactly when divorce statistics swell.  Many women, as they approach age 40, believe it’s now or never for getting their life back on track.  It’s the same phenomenon as older wealthy men trading in their long-time partners for trophy wives, only it’s the women who are dropping their men. To read more of Mr. Sedgwick’s opinions on this topic and how he believes that men pay a premium in emotional cost in divorce, click here.

 

I can’t agree more that men interpret a lack of complaining as satisfaction. However, if we examine those statistics they are, in fact, not very different. One in four is actually 25% which is not so dramatically different than 14%! In truth, women are as likely to overlook their husband’s dissatisfaction. Frequently men feel ignored and replaced by their wife’s dedication to children. The women is then blindsided when the man decides to divorce or she discovers an affair. Men and women often take each other for granted, minimize problems, over focus on career, money issues or child- rearing. It is well documented and obvious to the casual observer that most couples spend more time watching television or on the internet than engaging in dialogue. Both sexes hold responsibility for this lapse in connection.

Dr. Ned Hostein, MD., a Harvard-trained public health specialist and the Board Chairman of Fathers and Families, explains that there is a physical toll from divorce brought on by excess stress.  He notes: “The top 5 causes of human stress are: 1) the death of a child 2) the loss of a spouse 3) the loss of a home 4) serious financial woes and 5) losing a relationship with a child…Four of these five are involved when someone goes through a divorce…  According to a study done by the American Journal of Psychiatry, blood pressure and cholesterol levels rise and the risk of heart disease and coronary failure increases sharply.  Other problems associated with Sudden Divorce Syndrome include diabetes and cirrhosis of the liver, in part because distraught people may turn to unhealthy behaviors, like drinking, after a break up.  Statistically, divorced men are nine times more likely to commit suicide than divorced women!”

 

I question the above statistics. If Sudden Divorce Syndrome is not even a recognized diagnosis then how can we attribute diabetes or cirrhosis to its existence? Diabetes is clearly related to obesity and poor diet choices and cirrhosis often occurs after years of abusing alcohol.

I also would like to provide another resource regarding life stressors. According to Answers.com

, the top 10 stress situations are:

 

Death of spouse
Divorce
Marital separation
Jail term or death of close family member
Personal injury or illness
Marriage
Loss of job due to termination
Marital reconciliation or retirement
Pregnancy
Change in financial state

 

 

While divorce is stressful, I think we do a disservice to all involved when we skew the information. All parties feel badly enough without frightening them with distorted statistics. Furthermore, if you look at the above list, you will see that stress also results from “happy” occasions. Stress is a part of life. We cannot avoid it, but we can learn to deal with it in healthier ways. Excess food and abuse of alcohol are examples of unhealthy coping choices.  Let’s be clear- people have choices in their behavior. It is not a foregone conclusion that everyone who divorces gets cirrhosis or diabetes! Let’s not paint pictures of victims of divorce. Let’s encourage healthy choices and support empowerment and resilience.

Typically, the husband will often believe it is fundamentally unfair that the wife should receive half their married property and retirement account, and often spousal support.  His entire plan for “enjoying retirement” is dramatically altered.  These cases are very difficult for the abandoned spouse.

 

Each partner actually experiences two divorces. One is the legal divorce and the other is the emotional divorce. While the couple experience the legal divorce on the same time line, the emotional divorce happens on individual time lines. So, the woman who says” I am done” is emotionally divorced before she begins the legal process.  She may present as logical, cool and “all business”. Her husband may see her as unfeeling and heartless.  Her detachment indicates she is emotionally divorced. He may, on the other hand, not even have begun to work on the emotional process of divorce. I have seen this in reverse as well. The man has emotionally “moved on” and the woman doesn’t know what has hit her. The chasm created by the gap in their emotional process can often play out in the legal area. In short, the further apart a couple is in their emotional uncoupling process, the more likely an acrimonious legal divorce

The best advice I can offer is to seek the services of an excellent marriage counselor as early as possible if you have any suspicion that your spouse has become disenchanted or withdrawn.  Discuss it candidly, and with professional help you may be able to work through the issue. If your wife is bringing up the same recurring marital issues, you had better pay attention. And my advice to men is to stop living in a fantasy world.  The complaints may or may not be valid, however they are real to your wife, and you’re going to have some major problems if you ignore them. Don’t wait until the process server slaps a divorce complaint in your hand!

 

Over the years in my practice I have heard “Marriage counseling doesn’t work”. The problem is not that it doesn’t work, but that marriage therapy is not a miracle cure. If you have physical symptoms, the sooner you seek medical help, the less drastic, prolonged, painful and costly your treatment will be. The same is true for a marriage showing symptoms of distress. The sooner you address the problem, the more likely the marriage can be saved. One final piece of advice, if your partner says he/she is having a problem, just because you don’t think there is a problem, doesn’t mean you should ignore the situation. In a marriage if one person is unhappy, then something is wrong and help from a professional should be sought out as soon as possible. Don’t wait until you are dragging the corpse of your marriage into a therapist’s office.

Attorney Robert L. Mues is the author of "Divorce in Ohio", featured in "Who's Who in American Law", and is also the managing partner of Dayton, Ohio law firm, Holzfaster, Cecil, McKnight & Mues.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Linda L. Piff, a respected lawyer and blogger in New Jersey, writes in her blog, reproduced below, that Collaborative Practice is far more cost effective than litigation.

Although most family law cases do eventually settle, they do so on the court house steps after most of the damage of litigation has occurred. The inflammatory court papers have been filed and become a public record, large sums of money have been spent on litigation and the children become victims of the divorce process.

Collaborative divorce in a relatively new concept for New Jersey. It was approved by the Supreme Court as a way for parties to divorce on December 5, 2005. While relatively new, collaborative practitioners are experiencing a demand for this way to divorce.

In a collaborative case, the parties agree not to litigate from the onset. Unlike mediation, which uses a neutral as the only professional in the dispute resolution process, in a collaborative case each party is represented by an attorney. The value for clients is that they avoid the damage that is done through litigation and save the expense of the lengthy court room battle.

What can be said with confidence is that no other kind of professional conflict resolution assistance is consistently as efficient or economical as collaborative law for as broad a range of clients. While the cost of attorney fees cannot be predicted accurately, a rule of thumb is that collaborative law representation will cost from one-third to one-half as much as being represented conventionally by a lawyer who takes issues in your case to court.

Our experience in Ontario is the same. Collaborative practice is a far more efficient and cost-effective way of getting through your divorce.  Learn more about Collaborative Practice. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many people who are separating want to avoid paying legal fees as they feel they cannot afford a lawyer. While it is very understandable that people feel this way, as lawyers generally bill at a high hourly rate, there are some very good reasons why you should at the very least consult a lawyer if you are going through a divorce. Not doing so could potentially cost you a lot more than the legal cost you will incur in consulting or retaining a lawyer to assist you with your separation.

When clients come see me for an initial consultation they tell me that their “friends” have told them various things that have sent them into panic mode. Very often the information that they have obtained from their “friends” is inaccurate or has been exaggerated or twisted in some way. Some of the common “myths” that I hear almost on a daily basis are as follows:

• If parents have joint custody of children then neither parent pays child support;
• If a spouse leaves the matrimonial home he/she will lose all of their rights to the home;
• If a parent is an “access parent” they do not have the right to information about a child from schools, doctors, etc…
• Common law partners share property in the same way as married people;
• People are considered “common law” for family law purposes after only one year of living together;
• All people have to do to “equalize” their property is to share their assets equally when they separate.

All of the above statements are inaccurate and misleading. If someone was to follow this advice it could leave them in a position where they enter into an unenforceable separation agreement with their spouse, only to end up in court several years later and having to start from square one.

I always encourage people to settle the issues arising from their separation as expeditiously as possible and to minimize the involvement of lawyers if they want to keep the costs to a minimum. That being said, in order to have a valid and enforceable separation agreement, you need to first understand how the law applies to your family’s situation. You also always need to exchange full and frank financial disclosure of your income and all assets and debts as of marriage and as of the date of separation as any agreement done without disclosure is liable to be overturned by a court if it is ever challenged at a later date. I have even seen agreements overturned at the request of the party who drafted the agreement on the basis that there was insufficient financial disclosure exchanged at the time of the drafting of the agreement !

It is also wise to obtain “Independent Legal Advice” and to have a certificate attached to your agreement to verify that legal advice was obtained. It is also important for your spouse to have independent legal advice. This way, neither party can later argue that they were not aware of their legal rights when they signed the agreement. Another advantage of having independent legal advice is that if the lawyer has failed to properly advise you about your legal rights and responsibilities or the agreement is poorly drafted, and you have economic damages as a result of the lawyer’s failure to give adequate legal advice, you can sue the lawyer and obtain compensation from the lawyer’s professional insurer. This is very similar to “title insurance” in that it your agreement is in effect insured if you have a lawyer review it and give you independent legal advice.

If you want to minimize your costs, try negotiating an agreement “in principle” with your spouse either directly, or through mediation and get a lawyer to draft up an agreement based on your agreement in principle. There is also the “collaborative practice” model where you come to an agreement by meeting with your lawyers in four way meetings without going to court which is usually far less expensive and more efficient than litigation.

If you want to save money,  going to court should always be a last resort. Going to court with a lawyer is especially expensive because so much time is spent waiting outside the court room to be seen by a judge. On occasion people go to court, spend the entire day waiting to be heard and are told at the end of the day to come back another day as the judge has run out of time to hear their matter. If you have a lawyer with you waiting, you may have already spent up to $2,500.00 waiting for nothing just for that one day.

Many people at court are unrepresented (as much as 60% of the litigants). These people find themselves waiting hours to meet with duty counsel who can only assist them if they are “financially eligible”. The test they use to determine eligibility is a stringent one and is meant to limit the service to those who are truly below the poverty line. People who have a full time job are most often not eligible. Trying to understand the court process without legal advice can be incredibly frustrating as there are a myriad of court forms and procedures that you need to know in order to be prepared for court. If you do not come prepared, the judge could simply refuse to hear your case or may not have the facts s/he needs to make a proper decision or to direct your matter properly.

The bottom line is that it pays to spend a few dollars to have a consultation with a lawyer before you make any decisions regarding your separation and divorce and to retain a lawyer to draft an agreement or give you independent legal advice. That way, you may only have to do it once and can likely avoid the terrible experience of having to go to family court only to end up with the same result.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Divorce sucks. It is a catastrophe in the lives of millions. It's like having a fire rip through your home. The difference between a fire and a divorce is that you have always been able to get insurance to help recover from the economic loss. Now that's changed! 

James Gross who writes for the Maryland Legal Crier, a great blog, wrote a blog about a new product available to insure against some of the economic loss of divorce. Here is his blog: 

Divorce Insurance

Want to buy some divorce insurance?  Jennifer Saranow Schultz reports in the New York Times that SafeGuard Corp. of North Carolina is offering the world’s first divorce insurance called WedLock.  For each $15.99 per month you pay, you can buy $1,250 in coverage.   The benefit covers the costs of divorce such as lawyer fees or setting up a new home.

Then, if you get divorced, you send Wedlock proof, and they’ll send you a check for the amount of insurance you purchased.  You have to be married at least four years, however, before the payout.  You can buy riders to shorten that to three years or get your premiums back if you don’t make it that long.  Every year the company automatically adds another $250 to the coverage for each unit you buy.

The company helpfully provides calculators on its site for Divorce Probability and Divorce Costs to help you figure out much insurance you need.

It's an interesting idea eh? Of course, no insurance policy can compensate for the emotional losses suffered in a fire or a divorce. You need to find a good therapist to work through the pain. But a little cash is better than none. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The division of property after separation raises many questions: How is it divided? Do we have to sell the house? Do I have to share my pension? What about my inheritance? 

The uncertainty leads to many sleepless nights. Everyone fears they will end up with nothing. The classic country song by Jerry Reid comes to mind for many: "She Got the Gold Mine, I Got the Shaft".(Women may insert "He" instead of "She" in the title and lyrics. The fear is the same for both genders.)

In Ontario, some of the uncertainty is eliminated by the Family Law Act which describes a formula so both you and your spouse end up with about the same net property. It looks like this:

+ Add up your assets on the date of separation

- Subtract your debts on the date of separation

- Subtract any gifts from third parties, inheritances or proceeds from a personal injury claim received during the marriage which were kept separate and are still in existence on the date of separation

- Subtract your assets less any debt you had on the date of marriage.

= The resulting number is called your Net Family Property (NFP). Your spouse does the same calculation.

÷ 2  If your NFP number is higher than your spouse’s NFP number, you owe half the difference so as to make the NFP's equal.

Here is an example:

To Summarize:

DIFFERENCE $94,000 - $83,000 = $11,000

EQUALIZATION OWED BY HUSBAND TO WIFE IS $5,500.00!

Once the Husband pays the Wife $5,500.00, each will have $88,500.

The Home: In this example, the home is jointly owned. If the Husband wants to purchase the Wife’s interest in the home, he would have to pay his Wife the equalization of $5,500 plus pay her for her one half interest in the home. This is calculated as $120,000 minus the mortgage of $80,000 equals $40,000. So, the Husband would have to pay the Wife $40,000 plus $5,500 for a total of $45,500. The Husband would then own the house solely and paid out his Wife. Alternatively, the house could be sold and sale proceeds divided or the Wife could buy out the Husband's interest. 

Ownership: You and your spouse keep the assets and debts in your own names. So, all we deal with in Ontario is the value of the various assets and debts. You don't have an ownership interest in your spouse's pension or other assets. Just a potential right to an equalization payment if they have more stuff (a larger NFP number) than you. 

Household Contents: If you want help dividing up the furniture and other items in the home, here is a blog about it. 

Adjustments: You may wish to to adjust the assets or debts so as to equalize the NFP numbers and avoid an equalization payment. So, in this example, the Husband might give his Wife some of his assets or take on some of her debt so there is no equalization payment owed. 

Excluded Property: An inheritance, a gift from a third party or a payment for a personal injury which is received during the marriage is not shared. If it was used to pay joint debts or invested into a jointly owned asset or is spent, it cannot be deducted. 

Debts: I often hear complaints from clients about having to take into consideration debts incurred by their spouse without their consent or knowledge. It is very frustrating. The law says that the reason debts were incurred does not matter except if it was for an illegal purpose. Your debts (meaning the ones in your name) are yours and your spouse’s debts remain your spouse’s debts, and jointly owed debts are shared. But everything is balanced out by the equalization process. If you have more debts than your spouse, your spouse may have to make an equalization payment to balance everything out.

Whole Picture: Some clients get confused because they want to equalize each asset or each debt one at a time. You have to look at the whole picture, using the formula above, and not look at individual assets or debts.

Unequal Equalizations: In rare cases, it is possible to ask for an “unequal equalization” if ordering an equalization payment according to the normal formula would be “unconscionable”. Our lawyers can help you determine if your case would be an exception to the general rule.

We have seen many people get the equalization calculation wrong, including other lawyers. Our lawyers only do family law and work with equalization calculations every day. We can help you get it right.

Case Study: If you are interested in reading how a typical case is resolved, read this article. 

Personal Insights: When I went through my own divorce (yes, divorce lawyers can get divorced... just like doctors can get sick), I learned some personal lessons. Here they are.

Perhaps Jerry Reid wasn't living in Ontario when he wrote the lyrics to his famous and hilarious song: 

Well, she got the gold mine!
I got the shaft.
They split it all down the middle,
And then they give her the better half.
Well, I guess it all sounds funny,
Hoo, hoo, hoo, ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
But it hurts too much to laugh.
She got the gold mine - I got the sha-a-aft.

... or maybe he just retained the wrong law firm! 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There are many misconceptions floating around in the general population regarding what is commonly referred to as “common law relationships” and about the legal rights and responsibilities that common law partners have with respect to one another upon relationship breakdown. If you are in one of these relationships it is important to know that they are not the same as a marriage and that your rights and responsibilities upon relationship breakdown are different than they would be if you were legally married. This is why in some cases it is a very good idea to enter into a cohabitation agreement with your partner in order to define your rights and responsibilities upon relationship breakdown in a way that is fair to you both, particularly if you own valuable property in your own name that you owned acquired on your own without the assistance of your partner.

The greatest misconception regarding common law partnerships is how it is defined. Many people seem to think that you are “common law” after only one year of cohabitation. While this is true under some legislation, such as the Federal Income Tax Act, for the purposes of the support provisions of the Ontario Family Law Act, spouse is defined as a person who is married or thinks they are married as well as:

either of two persons who are not married to each other and have cohabited,

(a) continuously for a period of not less than three years, or

(b) in a relationship of some permanence, if they are the natural or adoptive parents of a child

What this means is that a common law partner does not have any obligation to support his or her partner (i.e. pay spousal support) until they have lived together for three years or more or have a child together. There is also a limitation period imposed on spouses applying for spousal support under the Family Law Act of three years from the date of separation, whereas there is no corresponding limitation period on applying for spousal support pursuant to the Divorce Act, which you can only do if you are legally married.

Another common misunderstanding is that common law partners share property upon relationship breakdown the same way that married people do upon marriage breakdown. There are two very important distinctions in this regard that you should be aware of if you are living common law. Firstly, the home that common law partners reside in together is not considered to be a “matrimonial home”, and as a result a party does not have an automatic right to share in the equity of that home or possession of the home under Part II of the Family Law Act if he she is not a legal owner (i.e. registered on title). Furthermore, there is no automatic right to share in any of the property of the other person upon relationship breakdown unless you have a legal ownership interest in the property.

When two people are legally married and their marriage breaks down, their property is “equalized” by virtue of s.5(1) of the Family Law Act which states that, “when a divorce is granted or a marriage is declared a nullity, or when the spouses are separated and there is no reasonable prospect that they will resume cohabitation, the spouse whose net family property is the lesser of the two net family properties is entitled to one-half the difference between them” . Equalization of Net Family Property is a process whereby a person’s net worth (i.e. assets – debts) at date of separation is compared to their net worth (assets – debts) at date of marriage. The change in each person’s net worth as of date of separation is their “Net Family Property”. The person who’s net worth has increased the most over the span of the marriage is ordered to pay half of the difference of the parties’ net worth’s as an equalization payment. However, the definition of spouse in Part I and II of the Family Law Act that deals with property and matrimonial homes, includes only persons who are legally married, or who thought that they were legally married. It does not include common law partners. This is why there is no automatic right for common law partners to share in the value of the other’s property upon relationship breakdown.

The fact that common law partners are treated differently than married partners when it comes to property division was challenged by a women in Nova Scotia, (where they have very similar family legislation that does not include common law partners in the property provisions) as being contrary to s.15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantees equality under the law. The Supreme Court of Canada surprised everyone by finding that the differential treatment was not discriminatory. The reasoning given for this is that:

Although the courts and legislatures have recognized the historical disadvantages suffered by unmarried cohabiting couples, where legislation has the effect of dramatically altering the legal obligations of partners, choice must be paramount.  The decision to marry or not is intensely personal.  Many opposite sex individuals in conjugal relationships of some permanence have chosen to avoid marriage and the legal consequences that flow from it.  To ignore the differences among cohabiting couples presumes a commonality of intention and understanding that simply does not exist.  This effectively nullifies the individual’s freedom to choose alternative family forms and to have that choice respected by the state.

\Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Walsh, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 325, 2002 SCC 83

In other words, the Supreme Court said that people who are living common law have chosen not to marry and many have purposely chosen not to take part in the property division that applies to married couples. Based on the number of people I have spoken to that think that common law people are treated the same upon relationship breakdown as married people, I suspect that they did not really chose not to share in their partner’s property upon relationship breakdown.

There are ways of making a claim against a common law partner’s property using “equitable relief” claims such as constructive and resulting trust claims. The essential principle behind these claims is that if you have lived together for many years and have contributed both emotionally and financially to the other party’s property, it would unjustly enrich the party who is the sole owner of the property to allow him/her to walk away from the relationship without compensating the non-owner spouse for their efforts. These claims are very difficult to make out and do not guarantee you 50% of the value of the property in question.

There is one respect in which common law and married persons do not differ, and that is where it comes to their rights and responsibilities with respect to their children. In fact, even if you have never cohabited or married, you are legally responsible to support your children and have equal rights to custody and access of your children. This is thanks to the Children’s Law Reform Act that sought to even out the playing field as between children who were “legitimate” and children who are “illegitimate” so as to ensure that they are equally supported and cared for by both parents.

Nevertheless, if you are in a common law relationship or are contemplating living with somebody you should consider consulting a lawyer to discuss the possibility of negotiating a cohabitation agreement with your spouse that would protect you both in the event of relationship breakdown. Nobody wants to think about separating, but the sad reality is that common law relationships are generally less stable and of shorter duration than marriages and there is a good probability that the relationship will end at some point. You owe it to yourself and to your children to plan appropriately for the future so as to ensure that you will be financially secure with or without your common law spouse.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (12)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link